Book Wanaka Haus, an Architectural Passive home in Wānaka NZ. Availability, quotes, Stripe checkout.
Cancel a Wanaka Haus booking under the published policy (full refund to 14 days before arrival, 50% to 7 days, none inside 7). Requires the guest email the booking was made with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| guest_email | Yes | Must match the email the booking was made with |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the cancellation refund schedule (full refund, 50%, none) and the requirement for the guest email. It does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, but the disclosed traits are significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that convey essential information without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the cancellation policy and required email. It could mention that the booking must exist, but the information provided is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 2 parameters with partial description (guest_email has pattern and description; id lacks description). The description adds some meaning by stating the guest email requirement but provides little beyond the schema. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('Wanaka Haus booking') using a specific verb plus resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_booking or get_booking by focusing on cancellation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool (under the published policy with a detailed refund schedule) and a prerequisite (requires guest email). However, it does not include when not to use the tool or explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Book Wanaka Haus: atomically holds the dates for 30 minutes and returns a Stripe Checkout URL. The booking confirms only when payment completes on that URL — give it to your user to pay (or pay with an agent wallet's one-time card). No account or API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| guests | Yes | ||
| check_in | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| check_out | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| guest_name | Yes | The guest's full name | |
| guest_email | Yes | The guest's real email — confirmation and door code go here, and it is required to cancel |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the atomic hold for 30 minutes, the return of a Stripe Checkout URL, and that confirmation occurs only after payment. It also notes that no account or API key is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, behavior, and usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (booking with payment integration), the description covers key aspects: hold duration, checkout URL, payment requirement, and autonomy. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value. The omission of cancellation or failure handling is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add significant meaning beyond the input schema. Schema covers 4 of 6 parameters with descriptions; the description refrains from elaborating further. The overall process is clear, but parameter-level guidance is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to book Wanaka Haus by atomically holding dates and returning a Stripe Checkout URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_availability and cancel_booking by focusing on the booking action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to create a booking) and provides guidance on the next steps (give URL to user for payment or use agent wallet). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Status of a Wanaka Haus booking: held, confirmed, cancelled or lapsed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The booking id, e.g. bk_1a2b3c4d5e6f |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. It only lists possible statuses without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place but could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., full booking object or just status string). It only lists possible statuses, leaving ambiguity about the response format. Incomplete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'id' parameter is well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves the status of a specific booking and lists possible statuses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_booking or create_booking which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or search_availability. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Itemised NZD total for a stay at Wanaka Haus. Validates the stay rules (minimum nights, peak-season minimum, guest cap) and checks the dates are open, before you commit to a booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guests | Yes | ||
| check_in | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| check_out | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, exclusive — the morning the guests leave |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses validation of stay rules and date checks, but does not mention side effects (none expected), error handling on failed validation, or idempotency. Describes core behavior but lacks full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function ('Itemised NZD total'), followed by secondary validation info. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return value. It mentions 'Itemised NZD total' but does not detail the structure (e.g., breakdown by nights, extra fees). Missing potential prerequisites like property ID (implicitly Wanaka Haus). Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'guests' or the date format validation behavior. Fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides an 'Itemised NZD total for a stay at Wanaka Haus' and differentiates itself from siblings by noting it validates rules and checks availability 'before you commit to a booking.' This distinguishes it from create_booking and search_availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use before booking to validate stay rules and pricing. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., search_availability) creates implicit differentiation. A more explicit when-not-to-use or alternative reference would push to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open and booked nights for Wanaka Haus (sleeps 8, Wānaka NZ) in a date window, up to 18 months ahead. Ranges are check-in inclusive, check-out exclusive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Window end, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to 18 months out. | |
| from | No | Window start, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the date window constraint (up to 18 months) and clarifies the inclusive/exclusive boundary for check-in/check-out. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, but the content strongly implies a safe query operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences without any filler. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical clarification. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not detail return format. However, it does state it returns 'open and booked nights', which is sufficient for a simple availability lookup. It could mention maximum range or pagination but is reasonably complete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by clarifying that ranges are 'check-in inclusive, check-out exclusive', which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also confirms the defaults (today and 18 months out) that are already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool retrieves 'open and booked nights' for a specific property ('Wanaka Haus') within a date window, up to 18 months ahead. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (cancel_booking, create_booking, etc.) which manage bookings rather than querying availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking availability before creating a booking. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context and sibling tool names make the intended use clear. It could benefit from an explicit note, but it's adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
cancel_bookingcreate_bookingget_bookingget_quotesearch_availabilityClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Host-owned vacation-rental direct booking via VRP. Signed offers, 0% commission. Not an OTA.
New Zealand payments for AI agents — cards / Apple Pay via Stripe. Never holds funds.
AI-bookable curated vacation homes in Northeast India and the Himalayas. Book on WhatsApp.
Search and rent musical instruments in New Zealand. Pricing, teachers, and FAQs.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching availability, getting a quote, creating a booking, checking booking status, and canceling. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_availability, create_booking, cancel_booking), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools covering the core booking workflow (search, quote, create, status, cancel), the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle of a booking: checking availability, pricing, creation, status retrieval, and cancellation. No obvious gaps for typical booking operations.
